Since the late 1950s, dental crowns, bridges, and the like have been made with a composite including a cast metal substrate with a veneer of porcelain fabricated in such a manner that there is a bond between metal and porcelain such that the composite is stronger than the individual component parts. There are several aspects to be addressed when formulating such composites.
Aesthetics is one aspect to be considered. The primary reason for the use of such a composite is to reproduce the normal coloration of natural dentition. The enamel layer of healthy natural dentition is quite translucent and porcelain can be made with equal translucency. The translucency of enamel allows the color of healthy dentine to be seen. The dentine color normally has a yellowish tint. For a porcelain/alloy combination to be effective as a composite, a layer of oxide must be present on the alloy to form a bond with the porcelain. While high gold alloys may provide a suitable yellowish background for the porcelain for proper aesthetics, the alloying elements can form a dark gray to black colored oxide layer, which can screen out this underlying yellowish background color. Moreover, larger amounts of alloying elements form a colored oxide layer that can further reduce or eliminate the underlying gold color of the alloy.
Mechanical properties are another aspect to be considered. The American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (“ANSI/ADA”) specification #38 and International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) standard IS09693 require a yield strength of at least 250 megapascal (“MPa”) for the alloy. To attain such strength in gold-based alloys, significant amounts of alloying elements must be added, the result being alloys having a color that is closer to gray. It was thought that it is necessary to provide great strength because the alloy supported porcelain, which had little strength, particularly in tension, and zero ductility. Any slight deformation of the metal can cause fracture of the porcelain layer. The minimum for the standards mentioned above were set on the basis of testing alloys that were being successfully used at the time of the development of the standards. Subsequently, the minimum requirement has been questioned since alloys with less than this minimum have been used successfully. Also, it has been shown that the minimum requirement for single crowns should be lower than that for crowns composed of three or more unit bridges.
An unpublished work at the University of Kiel in Germany has indicated that from 30 to 35 kilograms of force causes pain to patients while, in one instance, 75 kilograms of force caused fracture of the tooth.
Physical properties are another aspect to be considered. Although the abovementioned standards do not require either minimum or maximum values for the coefficient of thermal expansion (“CTE”), these standards require that the CTE value be given for both porcelain and alloy. This is because the popular conception is that the coefficients of porcelain and metal should be “matched” in order to assure compatibility of the two. This concept fails to take into consideration that stresses between the two occur during cooling rather than during heating, and the cooling rates of porcelain and metal vary very significantly.
It is readily understood that the solidus of the alloy must be sufficiently higher than the firing temperature of the porcelain so that the alloy is not even partially melted during firing of the ceramic.
Chemical properties are another aspect to be considered. The bonding of porcelain to metal does not occur directly; rather it occurs between porcelain and a metal oxide layer. Normal PFM procedure is to heat the cast alloy to a suitable temperature to produce a metal oxide layer on the surface of the alloy. If this oxide does not adhere to the alloy, it can be simply removed by its attachment to the porcelain. Some of the bond is simply mechanical but the primary bonding takes place as a mutual solution of metal oxide in porcelain and vice versa known as diffusion bonding. If the oxide is not soluble in the porcelain and/or vice versa, no bonding takes place. When the porcelain is fired, small particles and larger particle surfaces are fused (melted) and this liquid porcelain and the metal oxide layer form a solution by either liquid or solid diffusion.
Although porcelain fused to metal restorations have been successful in the dental field, it would be advantageous to improve the wear resistance and flexural modulus of these restorations. Lithium silicate ceramics, including but not limited to lithium metasilicate and lithium disilicate, and similar strong ceramics have proven beneficial in the dental industry providing strong, resilient, aesthetically pleasing dental restorations. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,455,451, 6,818,573, 6,802,894, 6,420,288, 6,342,458, 7,279,238, 7,316,740, 7,816,291, and 7,452,836 are directed to lithium silicate dental materials and are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
In general, it is desirable that all alloys for dental applications are nonmagnetic. It was found that certain dental alloys create a magnetic effect that is not desirable in dental applications. It would be beneficial to provide a dental alloy with good corrosion resistance and having non-magnetic properties. Moreover, it would be advantageous to provide an alloy that is compatible with ceramics which have lower coefficients of expansion than leucite based feldspathic porcelains with a CTE range 12.6-14.0×10−6/° C. at 25-500° C.
The inventors herein have found that alloys having an excess of platinum or too much grain refiner may cause formation of a dendritic grain structure in the alloy matrix and/or segregation in the alloy matrix. This in turn can cause uneven strength in the structure or interfere with certain mechanical properties. It would be beneficial to reduce the amount of platinum and/or grain refiners in dental alloys to prevent formation of a dendritic grain structure and/or segregation in the alloy matrix.